WP/27109/2006 of K.Krishnaiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 29 December 2006

ORAL ORDER:

The petitioner, who is working as a Superintendent in AndhraPradesh State Road Transport Corporation, filed this Writ Petitionquestioning the orders dated 18.9.2006 as confirmed by the orderdated 18.11.2006 by the second respondent, Executive Director.

2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by framing chargesagainst the petitioner as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh StateRoad Transport Corporation Employees (Conduct) Regulations,1963, (for brevity ‘the Regulations’). The charges framed againstthe petitioner read as follows:

“ Charge No.1: For your failure to verify the TRR withreference to relevant vouchers as Supdt.(F), Kadapadepot, which is instrumental in non detection of mis-appropriation by Sri C.S. Reddy, E.400524, Conductor,which is nothing but gross negligence on your partwhile performing duty in terms of Reg.28 (ix-a) ofAPSRTC Employees (conduct) Regulations 1963”.Charge No.2: For your failure to exercise efficientsupervision over your subordinates which amounts toserious mis-conduct in terms of Reg. 28 (vii) ofAPSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”.

Kadapa, has passed final orders on 18.9.2006 imposingpunishment of recovery of Rs. 18,954/- on account of pecuniary lossalleged to have been caused to the Corporation apart from thepunishment of deferment of annual increments for a period of twoyears. However, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, the saidpunishment is modified by the appellate authority, as under:

“The punishment of deferment of increment for aperiod of two years having effect on his futureincrements imposed by the disciplinary authorityin this instant case is modified to that of defermentof increment for a period of one year which shallhave the effect on his future increments and therecovery of Rs. 18,954/- in his salary in 20 monthlyinstallments already imposed shall stands good.”

4. It is submitted that the petitioner has preferred further reviewbefore the first respondent, as contemplated under the above-referred regulations, on 4.12.2006 and the same is pendingconsideration. Though the allegation of misappropriationis alleged, but so far as the petitioner is concerned, precisely theallegation is negligence on his part, which resulted inmisappropriation by conducter. Further, as much as the review asprovided under the above referred Regulations is pendingconsideration before the first respondent, I deem it appropriate todispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent-authority to dispose of the review petition as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Further, I direct that the order dated18.9.2006 passed by the primary authority, as modified by theappellate authority by an order dated 18.11.2006, shall not be giveneffect to till the appropriate orders are passed in the review petition filed by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

_______________________

R. SUBHASH

REDDY, J

Date: 29.12.2006KA/Msnr.